Appeal 6002814

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for mast, antennas, cabinets and all ancillary development at [site address] , [site address] , Burley, Leeds [postcode] in accordance with the application reference 25/04435/DTM and the details submitted with it including plan nos.: 100 [name]; 201 [name]; 301 [name].

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO 2015), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, paragraphs A.3(4) and A.3(7) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its siting and appearance, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis.

The provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO 2015 do not require regard be had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The details set out in the header and decision paragraph above are taken from the application form as I have not been made aware there was agreement by the appellant to make any changes to them. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm the plans before me show the erection of a 20m high mast with 6 antennas as well as provision of 3 cabinets and ancillary development.

The appellant’s statement addresses only one of the Council’s reasons for refusal, despite the decision notice forming part of their submitted evidence (Appendix 1.1). Nevertheless, having regard to the decision notice as a whole, the main issues in this appeal are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the regeneration of the adjoining site; and, • highway safety.

The appeal site is located at the back edge of the footway on the eastern side of [address], positioned in front of a low boundary wall enclosing a disused factory building. [address] is a predominantly straight thoroughfare, running uphill from its junction with [address].

The surrounding area is characterised by a varied mix of land uses and built form, including terraced residential properties, commercial premises (notably the vacant building adjoining the appeal site), a petrol filling station, a builder’s merchant and a restaurant. Opposite the appeal site, a block of student accommodation rises to between 4 and [address] level.

The street scene contains several prominent vertical elements, including lamp columns, telegraph poles and an existing telecommunications mast located on the edge of the forecourt to the nearby petrol filling station. Overall, development along this section of [address] lacks a consistent architectural form or unified townscape composition, resulting in a varied and eclectic character.

The proposed mast would be visible within the street scene, including in some longer-distance views along [address] and from surrounding streets. However, the mast would be comparable with the height of the building opposite the appeal site. Also, it would not appear excessively tall or out of scale when viewed alongside the existing telecommunications infrastructure, lighting columns and telegraph poles in the locality.

[address] is a busy, linear thoroughfare with a high level of vehicular and pedestrian movement. In such a dynamic environment, visibility to passing pedestrians and motorists is inevitable, although often fleeting. However, this does not, of itself, equate to undue prominence or harm to character. Viewed in its context, the proposal would read as part of an eclectic and visually active streetscape rather than as a dominant or incongruous feature.

I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the development would minimise its visual impact so far as practicable and would not result in material harm to the character or appearance of the area.

The Council’s concern relates to the potential effect of the development on the positive regeneration of the adjoining vacant commercial building. The redevelopment of that site is the subject of a planning application, although from the submissions it is unclear whether this has been determined. Details of the proposed development have been provided by the appellant.

The Council’s concern is that the proposed development would sit immediately in front of the entrance to a proposed retail unit on the adjoining site. However, the mast and cabinets would be located within the public footway and would be physically separated from the proposed building by a forecourt area. Based on the submitted drawings the equipment would not be positioned so as to unacceptably obstruct access to the adjoining site in the event that the proposed scheme is implemented.

The appeal site lies within the [address] higher order local centre. While this designation is a material consideration, it attracts limited weight in the context of a prior approval application and does not, of itself, indicate that development within the public highway would be harmful to local amenity or regeneration. In this case, I have not been provided with specific evidence or explanation as to how the objectives of the local centre designation would be undermined by the proposed installation.

For these reasons, I conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposal would not unduly hinder the regeneration of the adjoining site.

I am satisfied that the proposal would not obstruct pedestrian access to any existing or proposed premises. The development would be near to the junction of [address] with [address]. The submitted plans illustrate a visibility splay of approximately 2m x 42m at this junction rather than the 2.4m x 43m referenced by the Council. In any event, it is evident from the drawings and my observations on site that adequate visibility would be retained for drivers emerging from [address] as the equipment would be positioned outside the area required for views of on-coming traffic. The development would not materially impede sightlines. I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposal would avoid an unacceptable impact on the safety of highway users.

The Council has also raised concerns regarding the level of detail provided in respect of alternative sites, suggesting that the appeal site is likely to be more visually harmful than other potential locations. However, the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area or be unacceptable in any other regards. As such, there is no requirement for a comparative assessment to demonstrate that the appeal site represents the most preferable location for the proposal. In the context of a prior approval application under Part 16 of the GPDO, the absence of more detailed alternatives analysis does not justify refusal where the proposal is otherwise acceptable on its merits.

Concerns have been raised about potential effects on health. However, the appellant has provided a certificate to confirm that the proposal has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP). In these circumstances, the National Planning Policy Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy would be justified.

Other concerns have been raised by an interested party in relation to matters including fire safety, the effect of the proposal on nearby trees, and potential risks to workers or vulnerable groups. I see no reason why the development would be an unacceptable fire risk as it would be set away from the petrol filling station and timber yard on the opposite side of the road. No trees would need to be removed to allow the development to be installed and none would be near enough to be affected by the proposal. I have not been provided with site-specific or authoritative evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would give rise to material harm to health, nor that a departure from national policy and the conclusions reached above would be justified. Accordingly, these matters do not alter my overall conclusion.

The Order does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions for development by electronic communications code operators contained within it. These specify that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, begin within 5 years of the date of the approval and be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.